From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2022 9:15 PM

On Fri, Jun 17, 2022 at 3:36 AM Parav Pandit [off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

quoted

From: Jason Wang <jasowang@redhat.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2022 9:29 PM

Well, it's an example of how vDPA is implemented. I think we agree
that for vDPA, vendors have the flexibility to implement their perferrable

datapath.

quoted

quoted

Yes for the vdpa level and for the virtio level.

quoted

quoted

I remember few months back, you acked in the weekly meeting that
TC has

approved the AQ direction.

quoted

And we are still in this circle of debating the AQ.

I think not. Just to make sure we are on the same page, the proposal
here is for vDPA, and hope it can provide forward compatibility to
virtio. So in the context of vDPA, admin virtqueue is not a must.

In context of vdpa over virtio, an efficient transport interface is needed.
If AQ is not much any other interface such as hundreds to thousands of

registers is not must either.

quoted

AQ is one interface proposed with multiple benefits.
I haven’t seen any other alternatives that delivers all the benefits.
Only one I have seen is synchronous config registers.

If you let vendors progress, handful of sensible interfaces can exist, each

with different characteristics.

quoted

How would we proceed from here?

I'm pretty fine with having admin virtqueue in the virtio spec. If you
remember, I've even submitted a proposal to use admin virtqueue as a
transport last year.

Let's just proceed in the virtio-dev list.

o.k. thanks. I am aligned with your thoughts now.